Search (812 results, page 2 of 41)

0.04790705 = product of:
  0.1916282 = sum of:
    0.1916282 = weight(_text_:engines in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1916282 = score(doc=4537,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.8420352 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated. Findings - The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well. Research limitations/implications - All queries were in German, and the German-language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries. Practical implications - When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance. Originality/value - This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.

0.047834687 = product of:
  0.19133875 = sum of:
    0.19133875 = sum of:
      0.14885838 = weight(_text_:programming in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14885838 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.5069797 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042480372 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04742858 = product of:
  0.09485716 = sum of:
    0.07665128 = weight(_text_:engines in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665128 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.04742858 = product of:
  0.09485716 = sum of:
    0.07665128 = weight(_text_:engines in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665128 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 3246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3246)
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3246, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the affective premises and economics of the influence of search engines on knowing and informing in the contemporary society. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual discussion of the affective premises and framings of the capitalist economics of knowing is presented. Findings The main proposition of this text is that the exploitation of affects is entwined in the competing market and emancipatory discourses and counter-discourses both as intentional interventions, and perhaps even more significantly, as unintentional influences that shape the ways of knowing in the peripheries of the regime that shape cultural constellations of their own. Affective capitalism bounds and frames our ways of knowing in ways that are difficult to anticipate and read even from the context of the regime itself. Originality/value In the relatively extensive discussion on the role of affects in the contemporary capitalism, influence of affects on knowing and their relation to search engine use has received little explicit attention so far.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.046939135 = product of:
  0.18775654 = sum of:
    0.18775654 = weight(_text_:engines in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18775654 = score(doc=106,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.82502264 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64437.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=1150,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Voice search is becoming a popular mode for interacting with search engines. As a result, research has gone into building better voice transcription engines, interfaces, and search engines that better handle inherent verbosity of queries. However, when one considers its use by non- native speakers of English, another aspect that becomes important is the formulation of the query by users. In this paper, we present the results of a preliminary study that we conducted with non-native English speakers who formulate queries for given retrieval tasks. Our results show that the current search engines are sensitive in their rankings to the query formulation, and thus highlights the need for developing more robust ranking methods.

0.042849373 = product of:
  0.17139749 = sum of:
    0.17139749 = weight(_text_:engines in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17139749 = score(doc=478,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.75313926 = fieldWeight in 478, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=478)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Web Search Engine Research", edited by Dirk Lewandowski, provides an understanding of Web search engines from the unique perspective of Library and Information Science. The book explores a range of topics including retrieval effectiveness, user satisfaction, the evaluation of search interfaces, the impact of search on society, reliability of search results, query log analysis, user guidance in the search process, and the influence of search engine optimization (SEO) on results quality. While research in computer science has mainly focused on technical aspects of search engines, LIS research is centred on users' behaviour when using search engines and how this interaction can be evaluated. LIS research provides a unique perspective in intermediating between the technical aspects, user aspects and their impact on their role in knowledge acquisition. This book is directly relevant to researchers and practitioners in library and information science, computer science, including Web researchers.

LCSH

Web search engines

Subject

Web search engines

0.042202387 = product of:
  0.084404774 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 1082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=1082,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 1082, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1082)
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=1082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

With the proliferation of huge amounts of (heterogeneous) data on the Web, the importance of information retrieval (IR) has grown considerably over the last few years. Big players in the computer industry, such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, are the primary contributors of technology for fast access to Web-based information; and searching capabilities are now integrated into most information systems, ranging from business management software and customer relationship systems to social networks and mobile phone applications. Ceri and his co-authors aim at taking their readers from the foundations of modern information retrieval to the most advanced challenges of Web IR. To this end, their book is divided into three parts. The first part addresses the principles of IR and provides a systematic and compact description of basic information retrieval techniques (including binary, vector space and probabilistic models as well as natural language search processing) before focusing on its application to the Web. Part two addresses the foundational aspects of Web IR by discussing the general architecture of search engines (with a focus on the crawling and indexing processes), describing link analysis methods (specifically Page Rank and HITS), addressing recommendation and diversification, and finally presenting advertising in search (the main source of revenues for search engines). The third and final part describes advanced aspects of Web search, each chapter providing a self-contained, up-to-date survey on current Web research directions. Topics in this part include meta-search and multi-domain search, semantic search, search in the context of multimedia data, and crowd search. The book is ideally suited to courses on information retrieval, as it covers all Web-independent foundational aspects. Its presentation is self-contained and does not require prior background knowledge. It can also be used in the context of classic courses on data management, allowing the instructor to cover both structured and unstructured data in various formats. Its classroom use is facilitated by a set of slides, which can be downloaded from www.search-computing.org.

Date

16.10.2013 19:22:44

0.042202387 = product of:
  0.084404774 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=1435,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Background: Faceted navigation (sometimes known as faceted search, faceted browsing, or guided navigation) is the solution applied to an increasingly diverse range of search and discovery applications in the second decade of XXI century. Faceted search is now the dominant interaction paradigm for most of the e-commerce sites and becomes an important solution for universal and specialized search engines for the content-heavy sites such as media publishers, libraries and even non-profits - to make their often broad range of content more findable. Faceted search interfaces are increasingly used to support complex and iterative information-seeking tasks such as exploratory search. These interfaces provide clickable categories in conjunction with search result lists so that searchers can narrow and browse the results without reformulating their queries. User studies demonstrate that faceted search provides more effective information-seeking support to users than best-first search. Faceted search interfaces are presented as an answer to the investigative nature, uncertainty and ambiguity in exploratory search tasks. Objectives: The interesting research questions are: What is the scale of faceted navigating in search and discovery application? Is faceted search intuitive information finding? How faceted search tools affect searcher behavior - the tactics searchers use when querying, looking at search results, and selecting them? What are the key benefits and weaknesses of faceted navigating for users? In what sense faceted navigation is the panacea for information overload? What faceted implementations are the most prominent? What are the most important findings in the field of faceted search for the development of knowledge organization and information science? Methods: To answer research questions listed above, multiple methods will be applied: the conceptual analysis (to clarify the concept of faceted navigation); selected aspects of information seeking and exploratory search will be subject to critical literature review; critical analysis of some user studies will be performed. Case studies of several search and discovery tools will be used to exemplify concrete solutions in them. Findings: The study explores faceted navigation and reveals the most actual solutions in modern search engines, discovery tools, library catalogs. It attempts to explain specific features of this method from the users' perspective, not information architects. It helps knowledge organization specialists to confront theory with users' practice and propose new efficient support for information environments.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.039523818 = product of:
  0.079047635 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.039523818 = product of:
  0.079047635 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22

0.036133762 = product of:
  0.14453505 = sum of:
    0.14453505 = weight(_text_:engines in 848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14453505 = score(doc=848,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.63510275 = fieldWeight in 848, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=848)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An examination of search result terms (SRT) of two major search engines and the classification of these terms into the three thesaural relationships - equivalence, hierarchical and associative, indicating their occurrence outside of a controlled vocabulary setting and demonstrating a naturally occurring phenomena in language.

0.035707813 = product of:
  0.14283125 = sum of:
    0.14283125 = weight(_text_:engines in 3079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14283125 = score(doc=3079,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 3079, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3079)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Aimed at information and communication professionals, scholars and students, Google and the Digital Divide: The Biases of Online Knowledge provides invaluable insight into the significant role that search engines play in growing the digital divide between individuals, organizations, and states. With a specific focus on Google, author Elad Segev explains the concept of the digital divide and the effects that today's online environment has on knowledge bias, power, and control. Using innovative methods and research approaches, Segev compares the popular search queries in Google and Yahoo in the United States and other countries and analyzes the various biases in Google News and Google Earth. Google and the Digital Divide shows the many ways in which users manipulate Google's information across different countries, as well as dataset and classification systems, economic and political value indexes, specific search indexes, locality of use indexes, and much more. Segev presents important new social and political perspectives to illustrate the challenges brought about by search engines, and explains the resultant political, communicative, commercial, and international implications.

Content

Inhalt: Power, communication and the internet -- The structure and power of search engines -- Google and the politics of online searching -- Users and uses of Google's information -- Mass media channels and the world of Google News -- Google's global mapping

LCSH

Search engines

Subject

Search engines

0.035707813 = product of:
  0.14283125 = sum of:
    0.14283125 = weight(_text_:engines in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14283125 = score(doc=4116,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes the research stimulated by a fundamental shift that is occurring in the manufacture and marketing of aero engines for commercial and defense purposes, away from the selling of products to the provision of services. This research was undertaken in an aerospace company, which designs and manufactures aero engines and also offers contracts, under which it remains responsible for the maintenance of engines. These contracts allow the company to collect far more data about the in-service performance of their engines than was previously available. This article aims at identifying what parts of this in-service information are required when components or systems of existing engines need to be redesigned because they have not performed as expected in service. In addition, this article aims at understanding how designers use this in-service information in a redesign task. In an attempt to address these aims, we analyzed five case studies involving redesign of components or systems of an existing engine. The findings show that the in-service information accessed by the designers mainly contains the undesired physical actions (e.g., deterioration mechanisms, deterioration effects, etc.) and the causal chains of these undesired physical actions. We identified a pattern in the designers' actions regarding the use of these causal chains. The designers have generated several solutions that utilize these causal chains seen in the in-service information. The findings provide a sound basis for developing tools and methods to support designers in effectively satisfying their in-service information requirements in a redesign task.

0.035707813 = product of:
  0.14283125 = sum of:
    0.14283125 = weight(_text_:engines in 1523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14283125 = score(doc=1523,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 1523, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1523)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

People frequently answer consequential questions, such as those with a medical focus, using Internet search engines. Their primary goal is to revise or establish beliefs in one or more outcomes. Search engines are not designed to furnish answers, and instead provide results that may contain answers. Information retrieval research has targeted aspects of information access such as query formulation, relevance, and search success. However, there are important unanswered questions on how beliefs-and potential biases in those beliefs-affect search behaviors and how beliefs are shaped by searching. To understand belief dynamics, we focus on yes-no medical questions (e.g., "Is congestive heart failure a heart attack?"), with consensus answers from physicians. We show that (a) presearch beliefs are affected only slightly by searching and changes are likely to skew positive (yes); (b) presearch beliefs affect search behavior; (c) search engines can shift some beliefs by manipulating result rank and availability, but strongly-held beliefs are difficult to move using uncongenial information and can be counterproductive, and (d) search engines exhibit near-random answer accuracy. Our findings suggest that search engines should provide correct answers to searchers' questions and develop methods to persuade searchers to shift strongly held but factually incorrect beliefs.

0.035707813 = product of:
  0.14283125 = sum of:
    0.14283125 = weight(_text_:engines in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14283125 = score(doc=3372,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.034167632 = product of:
  0.13667053 = sum of:
    0.13667053 = sum of:
      0.10632741 = weight(_text_:programming in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10632741 = score(doc=2645,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.36212835 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
      0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030343125 = score(doc=2645,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Major efforts have been conducted on ontology learning, that is, semiautomatic processes for the construction of domain ontologies from diverse sources of information. In the past few years, a research trend has focused on the construction of educational ontologies, that is, ontologies to be used for educational purposes. The identification of the terminology is crucial to build ontologies. Term extraction techniques allow the identification of the domain-related terms from electronic resources. This paper presents LiTeWi, a novel method that combines current unsupervised term extraction approaches for creating educational ontologies for technology supported learning systems from electronic textbooks. LiTeWi uses Wikipedia as an additional information source. Wikipedia contains more than 30 million articles covering the terminology of nearly every domain in 288 languages, which makes it an appropriate generic corpus for term extraction. Furthermore, given that its content is available in several languages, it promotes both domain and language independence. LiTeWi is aimed at being used by teachers, who usually develop their didactic material from textbooks. To evaluate its performance, LiTeWi was tuned up using a textbook on object oriented programming and then tested with two textbooks of different domains-astronomy and molecular biology.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:38:14

0.034167632 = product of:
  0.13667053 = sum of:
    0.13667053 = sum of:
      0.10632741 = weight(_text_:programming in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10632741 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.36212835 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
      0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030343125 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04479146 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The present essay is based on research funded by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology and carried out by the Munich School of Philosophy (Prof. Godehard Brüntrup) in cooperation with the IT company Comelio GmbH. It is concerned with setting up the philosophical framework for a systematic, hierarchical and categorical account of questions and answers in order to use this framework as an ontology for software engineers who create a tool for intelligent questionnaire design. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in programming software that enables users to create and carry out their own surveys. Considering the, to say the least, vast amount of areas of applications these software tools try to cover, it is surprising that most of the existing tools lack a systematic approach to what questions and answers really are and in what kind of systematic hierarchical relations different types of questions stand to each other. The theoretical background to this essay is inspired Barry Smith's theory of regional ontologies. The notion of ontology used in this essay can be defined by the following characteristics: (1) The basic notions of the ontology should be defined in a manner that excludes equivocations of any kind. They should also be presented in a way that allows for an easy translation into a semi-formal language, in order to secure easy applicability for software engineers. (2) The hierarchical structure of the ontology should be that of an arbor porphyriana.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:59

0.033800043 = product of:
  0.13520017 = sum of:
    0.13520017 = weight(_text_:engines in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13520017 = score(doc=393,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.59408426 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study employed benchmarking and intellectual relevance judgment in evaluating Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and Ask Kids on 30 queries that children formulated to find information for specific tasks. Retrieved hits on given queries were benchmarked to Google's and Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits retrieved. Relevancy of hits was judged on a graded scale; precision was calculated using the precision-at-ten metric (P@10). Yahoo! and Bing produced a similar percentage in hit overlap with Google (nearly 30%), but differed in the ranking of hits. Ask Kids retrieved 11% in hit overlap with Google versus 3% by Yahoo! Kids. The engines retrieved 26 hits across query clusters that overlapped with Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits. Precision (P) that the engines produced across the queries was P = 0.48 for relevant hits, and P = 0.28 for partially relevant hits. Precision by Ask Kids was P = 0.44 for relevant hits versus P = 0.21 by Yahoo! Kids. Bing produced the highest total precision (TP) of relevant hits (TP = 0.86) across the queries, and Yahoo! Kids yielded the lowest (TP = 0.47). Average precision (AP) of relevant hits was AP = 0.56 by leading engines versus AP = 0.29 by small engines. In contrast, average precision of partially relevant hits was AP = 0.83 by small engines versus AP = 0.33 by leading engines. Average precision of relevant hits across the engines was highest on two-word queries and lowest on one-word queries. Google performed best on natural language queries; Bing did the same (P = 0.69) on two-word queries. The findings have implications for search engine ranking algorithms, relevance theory, search engine design, research design, and information literacy.

0.03319098 = product of:
  0.13276392 = sum of:
    0.13276392 = weight(_text_:engines in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13276392 = score(doc=4437,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.58337915 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.